Lindsay Falvey

Professor (john) Lindsay Falvey B.Agr.Sc.(Hons), M.Agr.Sc., Ph.D., Doctor.Agr.Sc., Doctor Agr. Techn. (honoris causa) FATSE, FAIAST Professor, Faculty of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne 3010 Australia Former Dean, Institute of Land and Food, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture Life Member Fellow, Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, Herschel Rd, CB3 9AL, United Kingdom Director, Institute for International Development (Fund), 90 Carrington Road, Adelaide 5000, Australia Telephone and Facsimile: +61-3-8080 1618, Mobile: +61-408-353864, Message France: +33-870 448 232 ___________________________________________________________ 5 November 2011 Committee Secretary Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committees PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Australia [email protected] Dear Sirs, Higher Education and Skills Training to Support Future Demand in Agriculture and Agribusiness in Australia. This is a personal submission based on experience that spans both tertiary educational sectors, international trends and norms in agricultural education, international agricultural research and development and large-scale investment in Australian agriculture. In order to have its summary commentary appropriately weighted, it is introduced with a presentation of relevant credentials and a realistic comment on the Enquiry before discussing individual Terms of Reference. Many will claim the Enquiry is timely. If this statement is linked to a desire to return to a lost Eden of grand agricultural science faculties, the claim is empty – for that time has long passed. However, if it is linked to a clear understanding of current and future needs then the Enquiry may have the potential to cut through the self-limiting nostalgia that is both symptomatic of the problems of recent decades. Strong words perhaps, but as an agricultural scientist proud of what once was a great profession, I can see that the time for that mode of servicing such a critical sector as food production is now passed. On what basis do I make this assertion? No vested interest beyond objective concern for Australia and the field, and a unusually high level of experience across relevant educational, business and international sectors. 1 Personal Credibility: - five agricultural qualifications, including three doctorates – PhD (Qld), D.Agr.Sc. (Melbourne) and D.Agr.Techn. (hon. causa – Thaksin, Thailand) - Foundation Dean of Land and Food Resources at the University of Melbourne to merge the six colleges of the Victorian Colleges of Agriculture and Horticulture with the University’s existing Faculty – when it was the largest provider of agricultural education in Australia offering degrees, diplomas and certificates from higher doctorates to TAFE competency certification - CEO of MPW Australia and after merger of Coffey-MPW for international agricultural development across 60 countries – when Coffey-MPW was listed as Australia’s largest exporter of professional services - advisor to various international agencies and governments including World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP, IFAD and aid agencies of Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands – across more than 20 countries - Board Director of Hassad Australia, a new and very large (foreign) investor in Australian agriculture that expects to employ up to 100 agricultural practitioners by the end of 2013 to implement new technologies and higher standards of management than has been common in Australia Context and Relevance of the Enquiry: The Enquiry comes at a time when the transition affecting agricultural education has become clear. Rather than dwell on a past golden era of elite agricultural scientists – a valid description of some luminaries of agricultural science faculties – the Enquiry’s relevance is dependent on recognition of the transition that has occurred and the direction in which it continues. This is summarized here in two diagrams, which illustrate that: first, the continuing trend to substitute technology for labour leads to increasing demands for business investment, specialist and 2 integrationist (elite) knowledge and technicians who can use new technologies. The second diagram compares the past sources of agricultural knowledge and the current situation and shows that while the discipline of agricultural science remains relevant, its function should already be oriented to supplying specialists in integrating disciplines while other university faculties increasingly service engineering and single discipline scientific requirements of industry for both research and education, and vocational colleges service the need for practical technicians who can apply new technologies. The second diagram is contentious. Agricultural scientists commonly argue for a return to the model of their faculties providing all the integrated and specialist requirements for the industry and act as if the Rural Research Corporations are their private research bodies. I am an agricultural scientist but do not share these views. As the second diagram indicates, the industry needs all of these disciplines available to it, and the basis on which they are managed will be up to individual universities. This is the explanation of the reduction in the number of faculties of agriculture in recent decades – those institutions with a longer history and hence more conservative alumni are taking longer to change than the newer institutions. However, the reduction should not be seen as the same as the outcome recommended in the McColl Review, the most visionary of all of the reviews before or since. That review saw a logical reduction with an emphasis on rural providers supported by specific grants, as noted later in this submission. In the second diagram, its should be noted that university Faculties of Agricultural Science have always included an element of technical education – often done less well than in the agricultural colleges. With the absorption of many agricultural colleges into universities with Dawkins’ reforms, the science strength of university Faculties of Agricultural Science declined while the applied science outputs related to agriculture of Faculties of Science and others increased. Thus the remnant Faculties of Agricultural Science are not comparable to their predecessors – as their renaming in most university faculties indicates, e.g. Faculty of Food and Environment. Today pools of expertise related to agricultural science are to be found in State Agencies, CSIRO and diverse university faculties, which together represent the bulk of agricultural science education. Technical (vocational) agricultural education, on the other hand, is mostly to be found in TAFE-like colleges. Hence is relevant for the Enquiry to recognize that a review of higher agricultural education should cover diverse faculties and agencies and not simply represent a consensus of the remnants of past Faculties of Agricultural Science. 3 This selective history omits much in its attempt to provide a context to this submission. For example, another aspect that could be elaborated from the basis of innovation in agricultural industries would indicate that most innovation arose from practitioners (farmers etc) rather than research for much of the 20th century, and that research from agricultural faculties assumed a major 4 contribution for a few decades only to fall with the rise of outputs from various other faculties. The reasons for this change within universities are twofold: (i) a decline in the image of agriculture in an increasingly urbanized student profile, and (ii) an increasingly complexity in agriculture itself. Internationally the trend to service agricultural science from many faculties while retaining a small area of integrative agriculture studies is established. Australia will probably follow this trend for two reasons: (i) it has a small population base and cannot afford multiple well-equipped and subsidized faculties, and (ii) as a major agricultural exporter it has little pressure from its (predominantly urban) public for food supply. However, if it wishes to remain a major exporter, it would do well to study models in current successful countries, which are no longer in the West. Increasingly we look to China for the state-of- the-art in agricultural science. Before commenting on the specific Terms of Reference, one more matter of relevance should be noted – at the risk of teaching grandmother to suck eggs. This concerns the confusion caused by a certain sleight of hand in arguments for increased funding of the organisational status quo, where agricultural education is swapped for agricultural science and vice versa according to the needs of the argument. Both are needed but they are different from each other. Agricultural science produces, among other things, research outcomes and future researchers (education) and is the minor output numerically compared to the outputs of wider agricultural education. Researchers and researcher training for agriculture is no longer a preserve of faculties of agriculture, and in other major agricultural countries is often shared with research bodies (elite learned academies) and government agencies, and partnerships with industry are supported very strategically by government subsidy. The trend is evident when one looks at the figures quoted in literature from agricultural faculties themselves, which indicate that their some 350-650 graduates form part of the demand for some 4,250 employment positions; graduates from science, engineering and other disciplines

Load more